Messages - Goluf

The circumstances surrounding his life-long depression and death are fairly well documented, yet to answer your question in another sense, I have no idea. Many intelligent people are put in his position, and it's usually their work that sustains their mental health, but for some reason his did not.

David Foster Wallace was a very talented writer and a probing thinker. I recommend initiates read his "A supposedly fun thing I'll never do again", and "Consider the Lobster", and avoid his more PC mistakes (the commencement address for that university).

3) Begin professional mixed martial arts training immediately, supplemented by heavy lifting on off days, and good nutrition every day. You should strive to spar three times a week, honing techniques and conditioning the rest of the time.

I find that this formula works well for people with naturally aggressive personalities with no outlet for their thirst for obliteration. Do the above activities, and not only will the type of shit you describe not bother you anymore, but you'll be totally prepared to handle it if someone, not you, escalates the confrontation.

Violence is demonized in early American education, due to the recent feminization of our culture, and therefore many male youths grow up with the problems you're experiencing. My plan operates on the principle that, contrary to the claims of those teachers, reconnecting with your most essential warlike biological imperatives will center and calm you, not provoke further violence. As the famous saying goes, "Nothing is stronger than gentleness; nothing is gentler than true strength."

I think you'll find that the two things engender the other. There's no deep breath comparable to the one taken after a fight, and no conversation easier than the ones started after that breath.

I like Amadeus. Firstly, it puts his music up front, where it should be, and focuses on his best, most interesting work: the operas. It also treats the music in a mature way, neither succumbing to the numb hero worship of most depictions of artists, or the blandness of someone who wants to turn art into a documentary of dates and times.

Secondly, it destroys this mythological, prettified, and TOTALLY fictional image of Mozart that exists in the collective imagination of moderns as a pure medium through which divine sounds had only to whisper to be subsequently transcribed to paper with difficulty no greater than that of writing a letter. To be sure, Mozart was a talented composer, but he wrote canons called "Lick my ass good and clean", and wrote shit like "bet you can't play this part" in the margins of his horn concertos. Beethoven thought Mozart was immoral for writing Don Giovanni, and rightly so! That opera makes audiences blush to this day.

Point is he was a rude, immature, giddy young adult who was immensely talented, and ultimately whose greatest love was his craft. This is what the movie shows, and not only is it hilarious, but it's probably more accurate than how most composers are portrayed in the movies.

It also shows the distinction between wannabees and true masters, and how politics forces these mediocrities of music into positions of prominence that they don't deserve, only to have history forget them once their work is forced to stand on its own against the test of time, aside Mozart and all other suppressed masters.

If you can turn off your "nothing worthwhile is fun or funny" switch before you watch, I think you'll enjoy the movie, and also get a few things out of it.

In Degradation is the song that was used to gauge how one can better understand how a seemingly harsh wall of sound, is actually high art in the truest sense.

Bingo. In music, there are processes, and there are objects.

Let's start with objects. There are intervals between pitches, like the perfect fifth and the major third, that are aurally pleasing because they embody simple mathematical ratios, and are derived directly from naturally occurring acoustical overtones that we experience every day. "Dissonant" intervals, like the tritone, are less frequently encountered, and their derivation is more complex, making them thus inherently less "pleasing" or if you prefer, less "stable".

However, dissonant sounds can still be arranged in a way that is intellectually stimulating, in a process that is stimulating. This is why one can derive as much enjoyment from Beethoven as from Averse Sefira, even though one uses a greater percentage of dissonant sounds in its syntax. The lesson here is that the syntax of music is at least as important as the vocabulary of objects it is created from. The evidence for this purely experiential, but if you need convincing, look at how vastly different composers like Bartok are from composers like Mozart in terms of the vocabulary of musical objects they choose to use, and yet both are included in the western canon, and are performed and enjoyed by similar demographics.

Consider also how many metalheads will profess, most likely genuinely, enjoyment of Beethoven, and in the same breath praise a band like Suffocation. One uses far more dissonant musical objects, and thus their surface aesthetic is quite different, and yet both are appreciated by the same minds. This is because the syntaxes of both the music of Beethoven and of Suffocation, their processes, are actually quite similar.

Once this distinction between object and process is understood, it's in fact easy to apprehend how "a seemingly harsh wall of sound, is actually high art". The harsh wall of sound you allude to results from the music being made from dissonant objects, and its function as high-art results from the processes that are defined by the arrangement of those objects. The song is in fact both these things; dissonant and beautiful.

This relates to an interpretation of the idea of "pattern-language" that used to exist as a hero-worship page for Christopher Alexander on the old ANUS site. It described how one idea of how the world actually functions is that instead of saying that "beauty" only exists when certain static criteria are met, we say instead that there is a language of beauty, accordingly within which many things, indeed anything can be expressed.

We might then say that metal music uses the language of beauty to describe darkness, which can be directly related to the distinction we were just discussing between object and process; the processes of metal are beautiful, while its objects are ugly. The true innovation in metal from this standpoint then is the ability to address darkness in creatively beautiful ways.

Of course metal was not the first to do this; it's helpful to remember that we have predecessors. John Milton, Ludwig Van Beethoven, Hieronymus Bosch etc. all at one point in their lives could be said to have engaged with the above distinction in their own way. What still puzzles me is why this oppositional or adversarial nature of aesthetics, one that implicitly engages with opposites like light and dark, truth and lies, beauty and ugliness etc., is so enduring when most developed philosophies in Western nations point to this distinction being a convenient fiction, usually most convenient for the Christian church, for whom it served the purpose of conquering and focusing an entire continent of pagans. Why do our artists persist in using it, and yet our philosophers and scientists do not? Metaphor of course has great control over the passions, but if the distinction between good and evil is untrue, or at the least unrealistic, then are we justified to use it at all, let alone in art? How can we read "Beyond Good and Evil" and then listen to any occult or religiously themed music and keep a straight face?

Initially, suspira intro aside, an emotion is introduced (0:29 -1:08), then the experience which invoked said emotion (1:08 - 2:31). After the introductions, the emotion is explored (2:31 - 3:33), then a realization occurs (3:33 - 3:58) followed by a reference to the experience (3:58 - 4:25). This piece could end here really, making it lower grade metal, but it doesn't, which is why it's high art. The emotion fights the realization (4:25 - 5:35), then succumbs to a full realization (5:35 - 6:00) and subsequently falls into congruence with this full realization (6:00 - end).

This is great! A few things:

-You're using vernacular vocabulary to describe music; it's better to use terminology specific to music for analysis in the initial stages, to help with specificity. Does the music get louder or softer? Faster or slower? Of course you can take this as far as you need to in complexity to describe what you think is important about the music and how it communicates its experience, but these are just starting points. Don't use a terminology list though; the best way to internalize musical terms is to become a musician of some kind.

I should also mention however that, provided you've mastered musical theoretical terminology (and that is an ESSENTIAL prerequisite for the license I'm about to describe), you will probably reach a point in any analysis where conventional musical terms no longer serve you; in these cases you may be forced to invent or commandeer new terminology, and you should not be afraid to do it. If it's a crescendo, call it one, but if truly no word exists for what you hear, then use one that seems most appropriate to you.

-When I listen, I can identify clearly every section you've described, but as far as I can tell you mainly address riff structure and texture. What about the grammatically deranged and visually surreal lyrics? How do they interact with and overlap the divisions you've described? They clearly change from beginning to end, and articulate different things along the way also. Do they create their own unique sub-structure?

What about the details of vocal delivery? Do they enforce the patterns you've uncovered, or create new ones, or both?

And finally, that intro! It's not random, and you shouldn't throw it away so hastily in your analysis. Doesn't he mention a doorway as the riff fades in? Does he not also mention that the living death is behind that doorway? Seems pretty significant to the meaning of the song.

All this being said, I'm impressed by and in general agreement with how you've parsed the riffs in this song, although I would have used different labels for the sections.

For example, for the slow diatonic music with keyboards you generally favor the term "emotion", while for the more chromatic pitch content without keyboards you use the terms "realization" or "experience". You even pick up on some fairly subtle riff relationships, like between the sections from 3:33-3:58 and 3:58-4:25, by designating one as a reference to the other. What could be interesting to explore, if you're interested in these things, is what gave you the impression of this relation. There must be a reason your ear, and mine also, hears a relationship between these two riffs. I think here it has to do with the keyboard melody: the contour of the melody, if not the exact pitches, is very similar between the two sections.

All in all, I enjoyed your analysis, and like the best ones, it helped me to understand the music myself, and provided fertile ground for further exploration.

Basically get a grip and stop masturbating. Most people here have the potential to do something but no motivation or discipline to actualize it, why is that?

In my observation, it's because this forum tends to be a place for people at a certain stage of intellectual development. Most "do" very little, and get berated for it (and berate others for it) constantly, because they're not ready. They're at a point where they are synthesizing information; most won't decide how to apply that, and how to be happy doing it, until much later. The type of "quiet warrior" mentality hinted at in the OP is years away for most posters.

We judge metal by the standard of HLTO; it is probably the greatest achievement in metal. The works of Schubert cs. are it's equivalent to classical/music/art.

No, you judge metal by that standard. If that's what you meant, then I sense this is a soft way of saying that Burzum is the bench mark of all metal. The problem with a claim like that, and the others you've made, is not that it's controversial, it's that you don't substantiate it. To go on and say that Schubert is its equivalent in classical is, I think, demonstrably preposterous.

Compositionally, it can be demonstrated that their techniques and goals differed considerably, and that the resultant product did also. Consider for example Schubert's interest in relatively local events, small themes and catchy tunes, repeating them largely whole sale, even in works typically associated with variation technique (sonata form, ex. symphony #2 1st mvt.) This is in contrast to Burzum's focus on relatively global aspects of compositional design, as for example in the album you mentioned Hvis Lyset Tar Oss, where the number of riffs per song exceed the average for a black metal band by far. While you may point to "Tomhet" as an example of Varg's emphasis on local repetition, its lineage is from 70's and 80's synth bands, who in turn were influenced by the early post-war minimalists like Morton Feldman and Steve Reich, who were themselves reacting against models of composition that Schubert typifies.

Ideologically and personally, they were also nearly total opposites. Schubert was a savvy cosmopolitan city dweller, who held swanky cabaret parties at his house for the bohemian strata of Vienna. He was also likely a homosexual, and died of syphilis. Varg Vikernes is an unrepentant radical traditionalist, references his own introversion and even anti-socialism in interviews, and lives on a farm in the countryside.

Or did you mean "equivalent in quality", and not spirit? You've yet to show how either match up to any standard model of "quality" as such, yet to define that model, and yet to show how their relative levels of quality are not only equivalent, but in fact the highest(!).

I invite you to. Otherwise, how can we even react to statements like these?

Monetization occurred to the admins long ago. However, it causes problems: suddenly, you're no longer a free agent.

Monetization in the hands of the right people is not an attempt at commercialization. There are multiple sites with extremely non-mainstream content, that manage to make enough money to pay their regular contributors and staff. I wonder if ANUS can learn from this model. Alternative Right's format looks promising.

I'm not sure we need writers who aren't doing this for the sake of doing it. After all, since ANUS has formed, numerous spin-off sites have been created, and while some are profitable, none really have any sense of lasting appeal.

Popularity requires whoring to what is contemporary and what the labels want. ANUS has taken a different path, which enables it to be more honest.

This comes close to equating monetization with commercialization, and with the advent of things like google-ads and freely available development technology, I don't think this is an accurate description of how content distribution systems work in the U.S. anymore.

True, it used to be that the "labels" controlled all of the technology required for producing and distributing content, but that's changed; anyone can do it now, and anyone can find ways to make it profitable.

Which brings me to my next point: the distinction between profit as "getting rich" and profit as sustenance. I am advocating the latter.

Right now I'm assuming the hosting costs for ANUS are coming out of someone's pocket. It wouldn't be difficult to make enough money through some of the methods I've already mentioned to pay the hosting costs for the site, and pay the writers something per article. I guess what I'm saying is that the amount of money initially paid to contributors doesn't have to be large, because largely people are doing it "for the sake of doing it'. You're not going to get pandering yahoos at the rate of $10 for 10 pages, but I do think you'd be able to keep the good contributors already doing it at this rate.

The main problem here is the name of the domain, and the archaic nature of the content format. We need something more easily updated, and more updates to comprehensively cover all the past materials.

Yes. For example, the blog should be larger than a small side-bar, and perhaps moved to a different domain. As you mentioned elsewhere, at this point in the internet's development people are trying to avoid spam and virus likely site domains like "ANUS", and given that these are the most popular and frequently updated parts of the site, I think it would only affect them positively.

It is a funny thing that the critics of ANUS, without fail, have never been contributors to ANUS. Now that's just passive-aggressive (or, in gamer culture, 12-year old behavior).

1) This isn't true, and if it appears so, consider the fact that most of us use multiple pseudonyms across locations to minimize the chance of being found out and blacklisted in real life.

2) This constant characterization of forum members critical of ANUS as hipsters, morons, non-contributors, vindictive-failures, passive aggressive 12-year-olds, or whatever new epithet of the week, is a comedic defense mechanism. I'd like to see this type of name-calling stop, and see more engagement with actual issues.

It is a funny thing that the critics of ANUS, without fail, have never been contributors to ANUS. Now that's just passive-aggressive (or, in gamer culture, 12-year old behavior).

ANUS has done good, does good, and will do good.

ANUS -- with its imperfect but nonetheless noble attempt to discern good art from bad art -- is probably our best shot at any sort of political activism. Plato once said something along the lines of "if I can have say over the art, music, poetry, and literature of a state, I care not who makes its laws" and I think ANUS genuinely understands that and tries its best.

ANUS -- with its "active nihilism" and "transcendental idealism" -- truly helped me turn my life around for the better. I'm talking major attitude and behavior improvements, major emotional and intellectual development, and spiritual growth.

The changes I suggest in no way attack or demean the positive aspects of anus that you and previous posters have mentioned, and I will affirm their existence for myself and others. Furthermore, I've stated previously that I see the metal parts of the site as comprising a whole separate issue, with its own problems that have yet, to my knowledge, to be acted upon.

You are not the first person I come across in the political arena who is interested in Black Metal, and I have, in parallel, also come across people in the Black Metal scene who are interested in Whiteness and pro-White activism. I have my own theories as to the reasons for this overlap (see my TOQ essay, Black Metal: Conservative Revolution in Modern Popular Culture). What are your theories? Why do you think you are interested in these fringe subcultures (BM and WN)?

I donít see black metal as being a racial thing. I see it as being a cultural thing. Now, race and culture are closely related and I would be completely baffled by, for example, a black person who might claim to be into black metal. I would wonder what on earth about it speaks to him because he has no connection to the heritage from which it is derived.

Black metal is a musical genre which frequently relies on themes of early European traditions. This in itself probably speaks to people who are pro-white and who have an interest in their racial and cultural origins. A lot of lyrical content of black metal celebrates and glorifies our heritage. You donít find that in a lot of other music.

But I would not say black metal is inherently pro-white. A lot of people who are pro-white will be turned off by the overtly anti-Christian and Satanic themes, which are typically an integral part of black metal. I also find that a lot of people who enjoy black metal are not necessarily racially aware. Some black metal bands have intentionally distanced themselves from anything pro-white. Maybe this is because they could otherwise face hate crimes prosecution in their countries, I donít know. But in any case, I donít think we can claim black metal for our own and say, yes, this is pro-white music because it isnít necessarily.

Iím not sure Narrow Squirting Bowel Movement is as thriving a sub-genre as it was a few years ago, but considering the state of affairs in countries where black metal thrives, I think it is likely we might see some kind of resurgence of Narrow Squirting Bowel Movement or something like it, to the extent that it is legal in places like Norway, Sweden, etc. Black metal, to me, is all about the ugliness of humanity and the degeneration of society and I canít imagine any self-respecting black metal musician stepping out of their house in Oslo or Stockholm or wherever and not being completely disgusted by the way their city and their country, and indeed all of Europe, are turning into third world cesspools thanks to mass immigration and policies of multiculturalism.

But will such a resurgence spark some kind of revolution for our people? No, probably not. Black metal is too obscure and I find it hard to believe that any kind of music, by itself, is going to start a revolution.

As for my own interest, to be perfectly honest, black metal is not my favourite genre. I do relate to the lyrical themes, but some black metal (like Burzum Ė sorry, Varg!) I just donít care for the sound of it. There are some bands and some albums that I do especially like. I very much enjoy Nokturnal Mortum, Emperor, Deathspell Omega, just to name a few. But I think maybe because Iím a singer, I tend to gravitate more towards ďsingableĒ music and tend to choose that more often to listen to than black metal. I really have to be in a certain mood for black metal. "

I am speaking mainly about the philosophical, activist, or political arms of this site, including these boards, which long ago ceased being a forum for just metal. I see metal, and the DLA, as a separate topic.

Thinking further, I think I've identified two major problems with the site than can be distilled from my last post to this: a practical (this also means monetary) strain, and a social strain. Two broad solutions which I think may bring about the change I want:

1)Don't change the site

Then we have to get groups of at least three productive members living within 30 minutes of each other in the physical world. This solves the social and mental strain (not to be underestimated) of leading a double life, as anus-related activity becomes a part of their one life, and encourages mutual motivation.

This may seem scary initially, but practically it isn't difficult. There are many places in the U.S. where an entire house can be rented for $300 a month per person, including utilities. If you could get people on board, you could all be shaking hands for the first time within a week.

This would alleviate the social strain, and then once there the members can determine amongst themselves how best to alleviate the practical strains (incorporating anti-modern ideology into their careers, making enough money (beyond the jobs to pay the rent) to justify the time devoted to it, etc.) Preferably, and perhaps most essentially, they will have to discover and CREATE ways of making a living by being dissidents.

I realize this doesn't really apply to the under-18's here, but it's something to think about for the future, and could easily be dovetailed with being a university student.

2)Change the site

All the above could still happen, and:

-Cut the fat. We don't need to read articles about how to roll a blunt, or how Chuck Schuldiner died of aids. All such baggage should be excised. Trolling is adolescent.-Drop the lingering antagonism here towards academia, and instead take steps to merge with it. This means enforcing much higher standards of writing for the site (citations, peer checked, stop letting any dipshit with half an idea contribute), changing the name, etc.-Come up with viable ways to sustain income for the site. Consider advertising, publishing, fundraising, etc. This way authors can be paid for their work, and it encourages better (and more punctual work) from them.-Come up with ways to support, professionally or academically, the high achievers among us. An ANUS scholarship fund?

I don't have the details worked out for these changes, but I'd like to generate more discussion, particularly because I don't have a mind for business or mathematics and it's been fruitless in the past for me to try to solve issues related to them.

But in the end, I'm not hopeful for any option that involves extensive changes to the site because:

1)It's the brainchild and life's work of a single person, and it runs off the strength of his leadership, and getting that person to agree to mutilating what they've created, even if I think it's for the best, will be difficult.2) We've been told in the past by ANUS editors that part of the site's function is to be "an archive of objects", and that it will remain so in the future. This stands in the way of some of the changes I'm suggesting.

But if a sizable faction of us wants to go this route, setting up your own website is pretty easy now.

Here's a criticism that's been brewing in my mind for a while, based on observations made over two years in which I ran a site called Forest Poetry, and where I had the privilege of working with several of the more motivated/talented writers from these boards.

ANUS fails because it doesn't grow with the abilities and consciousnesses of the intelligent people inhabiting it. An average, intelligent ANUS user will become fiercely devoted to ANUS for a while, and then abandon it once more challenging, less frustrating, more credible, and more financially viable options for applying himself open up to him.

Here's a likely scenario: an average contributor to ANUS might find the time to write for the site, or one of its offshoots, for a while. Then, he makes a critical advancement in an academic field; his talents are noticed in the mainstream. Offers for graduate programs start rolling in, to prestigious universities that pay all of his expenses no less. He meets a girl, and they want to start a family.

Meanwhile at ANUS, the same things are being discussed by the same age group as 7 years ago, the same writings are there as 4 years ago, the level of writing/discourse in the best cases is on par with his own, but he has to wade through piles of bickering and illogicality to engage with those who want to have real discussions. Add this to the fact that he is separated by vast physical distances from these people, making communication (but more importantly mutual motivation) much more difficult. He lives a secret life in this community, all for no money, a lot of effort, and no visible results.

Do you see the problem? ANUS is cool, but not cooler than a PhD. in physics, a family, and a stable life in a nice city. Additionally, it is extremely mentally taxing to keep up a double life as a dissident and an academic/professional/artisan, and given the choice, all will choose the option that allows them to feed themselves. This is not to say that the two are mutually exclusive, only that focusing energy is a key to success, and anyone put in this bind wants to be successful.

If we want to keep growing, and keep improving, we have to harness the abilities of our intelligent faction. As people age, their interests change, and we have to be prepared to meet these interests by providing intellectual and professional sustenance for this group.

In short, I think it's time this site stop being a safe place for adolescents to blow off steam, and transition to a place where young, gifted professionals can make their first, and often most devastating, achievements in public life.

I have some ideas for how to help make this happen, but I'd like to hear your reactions first.

He is no simpleton like the average pop rock icon of the week propelled to stardom from out of nowhere on quick money from behind the scenes with a progressivist agenda attached. Dickinson is highly accomplished in at least three uncommon professions (pilot, fencer, singer) and is a serious history student.

The music doctorate is hardly cheapened with the addition of a well rounded, bright overachiever.

It most certainly is. The DMA is meant to certify a very specific set of skills that Bruce Dickinson (assumedly) does not possess. For every person, "bright overachiever" or otherwise, that receives that degree that DOES NOT possess those skills, the value of that degree changes (declines). Bruce Dickinson is probably, as evidenced by his other accomplishments, a motivated and high achieving individual, but to reward him with a DMA for these accomplishments is the equivalent of awarding the Nobel Prize in physics to William Faulkner.

I agree that the stereotype of metal listeners as "losers", while based in reality, is on the outs as bands reach greater levels of intelligence, abstraction, and complexity in their music. However, I think the conclusion you draw from this particular incident is misguided.

How is this going to accomplish anything? Bruce Dickinson's achievements are the same as before he received this honorary degree. Those persuaded to think higher of metal because of an honorary DMA given for an essentially non-musical reason ("music-industry", read "making money"), rather than basing their opinion on the actual body of creative work that it has spawned, would seem to be shallow. The criterion the report has given would indicate that Lady Gaga is equally qualified for an honorary DMA (in this case she is perhaps [hilariously] MORE qualified, considering she studied piano performance in her undergraduate years). Does this make her, and her genre, less likely to be associated with degeneracy?

I would rather suggest that honorary doctorates are a cheap way of getting someone famous to show up at your school for publicity purposes, and that the gesture is in the end a hollow one that most intelligent people see right through.

I lament the devaluation of the DMA as a legitimate form of certification when people like this receive one.

How many good art critics or theorists are great, or even good artists themselves?I have a pretty good hunch that many who have come through the ANUS or this forum at a formative age have later had real difficulty following through learning composition. Unless you have a lot of experience writing or playing (it's been said 10,000 hours of practice is the minimum for mastery), it's hard to get past all the practically useless hangups associated with having the short-term goal of writing great / transcendent music*.

*(note: this is something even Beethoven struggled with, despite having solid training and coming from a musical family - not to mention he didn't feel as artistically obliged to "answer" music of the preceding generation, as Brahms, Schumann, and Wagner would later with his music)

Agreed.

It seems to me that very few people here have musical minds, that is, the predisposition to think primarily in sounds. Rather, many here are literary thinkers. This is why attempts to describe a style of music extensively in words, with the intent of later executing this style in a band, occasionally crop up here, with predictably mediocre results, or very often no results at all. See "solar metal", programmed cell death, etc.

The reason for this, I beg to propose, is that the nitty gritty of musical composition has very little to do with ideology, and "real" composers are often hilariously ignorant in areas other than musical poetics. Composition, in other words, is not something you "choose" to do. It's not an activity, it's a condition. "Music" is the byproduct of minds that think in sounds; composition almost always contains a component of manic addiction. If your question is why aren't more people here composing music, it's because they are not composers. If they aren't composers, they aren't thinking in sound, in which case it would be essentially fruitless for them to create sounds.

To say it yet one more way, any anus member who composes regularly probably is spending more time composing than reading these boards, in which case it's logical that their efforts would not be visible, and also logical when you are wondering why on such a music-obsessed message board are there very few who seem to write their own material.

In addition, speaking well and composing well are often not linked, and so I predict many potentially talented musicians are often laughed off from these boards for being "hipsters" because they are poor writers.

Also,the ANUSites largely forgot to correspond and meet up at MDF again this year. I met ksava, and that's it.

Beyond those who forgot, and those who are "social dropouts" (I don't think this is accurate since MDF is a decidedly SOCIAL event), there is probably a sizable portion of attendees that simply do not wish to meet or hang out with other ANUS forum members.